"And then other times, he proves himself to be just as blind and arrogant as the people he seeks to debunk when he makes snap statements and dismisses without properly investigating first."
What in the above account provided by Randi is inaccurate? It's very possible that I have missed something.
If you are only complaining in general about Randi, can you please provide examples of him exhibiting this behavior?
It is not enough to "claim" or "say" that you can "communicate with the dead", "read peoples' minds". Anyone, all day long, can create hype and spout psuedo-science, and many, many, many people do.
Not only this, but so many of these claims have been encountered many times before and in many variations, and they have been shown again and again to be frauds, lies, nonsense and jibberish, 'cons', delusions, and ignorance.
If you are serious about your claims, and if you are serious about arranging for proper scientific testing to verify and document your claims, then stop the hype, stop the press-releases, stop the propagandizing on your website, stop whining about "bad vibes", stop ranting and raving to your followers about Randi and the "conspiracy to suppress the 'truth'", stop the bull, and stop the crap, because he has seen it all before.
Contact the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and work with them to arrange the proper scientific testing and documentation of your claims on terms that you are involved in specifying and agree to.
Unless your "psychic hotline" is already quite profitable, surely you won't pass up the opportunity to come and claim your $1million USD? Donate it to a charity if you like.
And if your abilities and claims are just the sorts of things that a proper scientific test can not be arrange for, or can not be conducted in the presence of "bad vibes", then what, precisely, do you expect us to do? If you are the one making the claim, and you are the one with the ability, then there is absolutely nothing we can do until you prove it to us.
Is Randi "Arrogant"? Maybe.
Is Randi "Blind"? If he is, then prove it to him and prove it to all of us. Contact the JREF and work with them to arrange a proper scientific test of your abilities on terms that you are involved in specifying and agree to, and claim your $1million USD.
"Bill: "If you concentrate on the gallstones, they get fixed in existence, and it's harder for them to wink out. It makes them easier to operate on." Doug: "Wow!")"
Have cancer?
Just stop thinking about it!
How did it get there in the first place when you didn't know about it and were not thinking about it?
I call conspiracy!
And while you're at it, stop fixing my extra 10 pounds in existence: how insensitive!
I think you will face significant problems in the areas of heat dissipation and general cooling.
From what have seen, many retail laptops seem to use custom heat dissipation schemes. I think we can feel pretty certain that work has been put into these custom schemes by professional engineer-types.
I also wonder whether you will be able to purchase some of the components and materials used in these schemes for your own use from companies which supply them, rather than having to buy in bulk. They may simply not be interested in doing busy with you, because it would not be worth their time financially.
While I think it would be quite fun to have, for example, an aluminum or titanium (non-Apple!) laptop case, I wouldn't be willing to risk frying a any motherboards, harddrives, and CPUs while trying to engineer a sufficient heat dissipation and cooling scheme - if I even ever could do so.
If you or anyone else know of solutions to these problems, or know that they are not the problems they seem to be, I am interested.
You are suggesting that it is not illegal to possess infringing material.
Whether or not a legal authority would recall your copy of the New York Times does not answer the question of whether or not it is legal to possess an infringing copy of the New York Times.
If it is illegal to possess an infrining copy, a legal authority still might not recall the infrining copies if it is incredibly inefficient to do so, or your possessing the infrining copy does not have any potential for significant financial or other market place harm to the copyright holder.
But this is beside the point, because in the case of the Linux kernel, we are not concerned primarily with mere posession, but instead with continued use.
If you continue to use your Linux-based system for commercial purposes after it has been found to contain infringing code, then it seems much more plausible that you may be held liable for any financial or other market harm done to the copyright holder by your continued use of code which infringes upon theiir copyright.
Certainly it seems that SCO could prevent you from redistributing your copy.
It also seems possible that SCO will not permit you to resolve this continued infringing use simply by paying a licensing fee, but may instead demand that you cease using the infringing code altogether.
I am not in any sense a lawyer, but it seems to me that the issue will be much more complex than you make it out to be,...if SCO wins even their first legal battle.
I have never used or read in depth about the modern BSDs. I don't know what nomenclature that community uses or would prefer.
My understanding is that "BSD" has historically and does presently refer specifically to an entire distribution of software. Linux, historically, appears to have referred primarily to a kernel.
"What would you call _that OS?"
Probably, I would call it "FreeBSD" if it is true that the "BSD" of "FreeBSD" has historically and does presently refer to an entire software distribution, as in this case, the great majority of software in the distribution would remain unchanged.
Similarly with Linux, I find myself more often referring to a particular distribution than to Linux-based systems generically.
And to think, people call it redundant when RMS and others point out that "Linux" refers only to the kernel.
Obviously we need to continue making clear the distinction if reviewers supposedly "in the know" don't have it straight.
If we call the OS "Linux", what are we going to call the kernel? What are we going to call the OS, if it ceases using the Linux kernel.
With some work, any of the major Linux-based distributions could probably replace the Linux kernel with the FreeBSD kernel and many end users, particularly those who do not understand the OS/kernel distinction, would be none the wiser.
In this case, it would clearly be incorrect to call the OS "Linux", but these end users would not understand why this is so.
"What the GPL of course DOES guarantee is that the software can't become proprietary at any point, whereas the BSDs can be"
Just to be cleear, modifications can become proprietary, but what is presently available under the BSD license will always be available under the BSD license.
This use makes sense. If they can make their warehouse management and shipping more efficient, then I am all for it.
Would there even be any significant non-sinister benefits of leaving the RFID tag in after the customer has purchased the item?
It has been mentioned that it might make returns easier, but that is a benefit I am willing to live without.
I hope we do not see the day when returns are allowed only for RFID tag embedded products. Certainly legislation will be passed to prevent this as the potential draws nearer.
Are there any other potential non-sinister benefits of leaving the RFID tag in after purchase?
"MozillaQuest Magazine: Does the C++ that currently is included in most if not all Linux distributions contain SCO IP?"
What is this convulted nonsense: "the C++"?
Read the interview.
The interviewer has either intentionally or out of astounding ignorance introduced in the first question the terms, "a C++" and "the C++" to refer to C++ compilers.
If I thought this level of intentional deception possible in a publication, I would say that the interviewer is using this convulted terminology to try to make it appear as though SCO is claiming to own the C++ language.
The SCO representative did not introduce the terms, "a C++" and "the C++". The SCO representative is simply following along with the terminology introduced by the interviewer. The SCO representative is kind enough not to inform the interviewer of the mistake, as he can easily enough understand what seems to be meant: a C++ compiler.
Do you honestly think that SCO is claiming that they frequently have customers license the C++ language from them? Of course not, that's positively ludicrous.
Pedantic? I suppose I won't object to that evaluation... oh well.
I wonder though, how weighty is a minor's right to use violent video games?
Or speaking of consequences, do the negative consequences of minors not being able to use violent video games outweigh the benefits of the extent to which those certain minors' violent actions will be less harmful?
While there will obviously initially be a lot of complaining on their part if a ban is enacted, surely that will pass.
I wonder what happened when the legal drinking age in the U.S. was raised to 21 - which must have been before my time, but I recall that it happened?
This effect could be lessened by a 'grandfather' clause which allows minors currently at or above such and such an age, perhaps 14, to continue using violent video games, but any minors under this age will not be able to use violent video games until they are (in the eyes of the legal system) an adult.
If the use of violent video games by minors who will already commit acts of violence against their peers, to instead commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games, then we should ban the use of video games by these individuals.
I am not optimistic that there will be any acceptible way to ban the use of violent video games by specifically these minors without banning the use of violent video games by all minors.
Surely a minor's right to use violent video games is not sufficiently weighty that we should on account of it not ban the use of violent video games by all minors if doing so will lessen the damage caused by those minors who will commit acts of violence against their peers.
I realize that the first objection to this will be that then we need to ban any action which cases a some group of minors to be violent. This is not so.
First, a minor's right (not necessarily a legal right, of course) to expression: such as in clothing and hairstyle, and to certain forms of speech, seems to be significantly stronger than a minor's right to use violent video games.
Second, in the case of many other factors which cause or enchance violence, there are acceptable means to more specifically identify and treat individually those minors who will be so affected.
You concede, " I absolutely agree with this. I think that some types of video games can incite certain types of behavior in certain types of people. Certain people tend to resonate with the violence they see more than others." You absolutely agree, you say.
This is potentially a sufficient reason to ban the use of violent video games altogether or the use of violent video games by certain groups.
Consider the following premises and conclusion: 1) The use of violent video games by some minors who will already commit acts of violence against theirs peers causes these minors to commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit. 2) We can not effectively enforce a ban of the use of violent video games by only those minors who will commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games.
.: 3) We should ban the use of violent video games by as extensive a group of minors as is minimally sufficient to encompass banning the use of violent video games by those minors who will commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games.
It is very unlikely it will be acceptable to satisfy (3) by banning any subset of all minors identified through some profiling process, such as: "has parents who own firearms", "are socially maladjusted", "exhibit anti-social behavior", "wear dark colors", "listen to Marilyn Manson".
Therefore I conclude, it is very likely that the only acceptable means of satisfying (3) will be to ban the use of violent video games by all minors.
The only potential objection I forsee is the claim that minors have a right to use violent video games. This is a higly dubious claim. It is quite implausible that minors have a right to the use of violent video games which is sufficiently weighty that it is not overridden by our obligations to lessen the effects of those minors which the use of violent video games will cause to commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games.
I am inclined to agree that the point you concede is true. However, I would feel more comfortable were more compelling evidence presented to me.
"In doing that, you'd have to ban anything that could be construed as an influence on people who react violently to their environment."
No, this is false. We do not 'have' to do anything of the sort, and neither does the force of reason at least clearly compell us to do anything of the sort.
If your right to take some action, x, is not overriden by some right possessed by another individual or group of individuals, generally, it seems, it will not be acceptable to deny you the right to take action x.
Further, in perhaps a majority of the sorts of cases you introduce, we can identify specifically and treat those individuals who are so affected by their environment. In these cases, there is generally insufficient reason to enact a ban.
You are suggesting we draw a conclusion which would seem to go beyond what is warranted by the facts you have presented. I presume you would claim that the move you are suggesting is analogous to the move being suggested by those proposing regulation of violent video games.
If you are introducing this as an argument against the suggestion that we ban all violent video games for all groups of people, then yes, the gist of your point seems to have been made; although the point seems to be rather obvious.
However, I am not aware that there is presently any serious consideration in the U.S. of banning all violent video games for all groups of people.
If instead you are claiming that the move you suggest making is analogous to the move suggested by those proposing banning the sale of violent video games to minors, then either your claim is not well-supported or you are misrepresenting the position of your opponent.
If the use of violent video games causes minors who would already commit acts of violence against their peers to instead commit similar sorts of acts, but which are significantly more brutal, violent, or harmful, than the acts they otherwise would commit, and if we can not ban the use of violent video games among only these minors, then we should consider banning the use of violent video games among all minors.
It does not seem, for example, that a minor has any significantly weighty right to the use of violent video games in the first place, and so it is likely that if such considerations as the above prove to be true or probable, then probably we will be justified in banning the use of violent video games among all minors.
While I don't like to reply to my own posts, an additional point of discussion came to mind:
Certain government agencies have rigorous requirements for verification of system security, why not also for ensuring and maintaining the integrity of data stored about human beings?
"Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials deny that, saying any glitches in the system are to be expected from a project of its scale."
Software faults will be present when the contractor involved is unwilling to or incapable of applying a rigorous formal verification processes. Individuals without formal training and without thorough comprehension of university level theorem proving practices may be unqualified to or incapable of applying these rigorous formal verification processes.
In the case of critical government systems such as SEVIS which can have profound negative effect upon the lives and futures of human beings, it should be both the expectation and requirement that the contractor involved apply rigorous formal verification processes either to the entire software system or to some sufficient subset thereof to ensure at least that data integrity is not violated.
This may involve at least formally proving correct, all operations which may potentially violate data integrity.
Of course a correctness proof will be of value only so far as the formal specifications correctly and fully describe the intended operation of the system. However, carrying out this process will itself assist in identifying errors and shortcomings present in the formal specifications.
The article also seems to suggest that this particular contractor does not have adequate knowledge of the problem domain to provide useful and timely support. Not only is this itself unaccepable, it very likely has contributed to the presence of inadequate and invalid formal specifications. Surely the federal government has had previous relationships with contractors which are more generally knowledgable of immigration policies and practices.
While I disagree with the policy which has given rise to the need for this system, attempting to satisfy this need has given further evidence of shortcomings in the development and deployment of critical software systems.
When the lives and futures of human beings are at stake, especially when this is so through not fault or knowledge of their own, we have an obligation to do better.
Was this anything more than a marketing article intended to suggest (in market-speak) that the technologies behind the quality consumer-level products of IBM and associates will be an integral part of existing new robotics technologies? Oh, and wireless(tm)! Wireless!
Wireless!
Do you want to hear me say "wireless" again? Because "robot" and "wireless" are really cool words!
Did you notice that specific products of IBM and associates were mentioned several times as potential solutions? I hardly think that we need an article to realize that wireless transfer of data may have a role in future autonomous robotics developments. We certainly do not need an article to suggest specific IBM and associates products which might be used.
That wireless transfer of data will be used is not where the technology is most or even significantly lacking; much less do the particular IBM and associates products mentioned contribute in any meaningful way to solving existing robotics technology limitations and problems.
Perhaps there is more worthwhile content in the linked resources.
The article stated that the government officials to whom the student presented his research suggested immediately that his work be taken from him and classified, and that he not be allowed to leave the building with his laptop.
If this reaction does not cause you as an average citizen, concern, it should.
The attitude displayed by these government officials is one of, "We do not control it, therefore we must suppress it".
How dare an elected official behave in this way. But you know what, it probably wasn't an elected official at all. It was an appointed official or it was an official hired by an appointed official.
How disgusting it is that we have individuals in positions of power with the potential for abuse, conducting themselves with this attitude, individuals which we as private citizens have no direct or immediate means of knowing, preventing, or limiting certain abusive behaviors, actions, and practices of.
The solution to terrorism is not to treat everyone as a potential terrorist.
The solution must involve the recognition that we as persons in this modern society are due certain rights to privacy, to the potential to know the world around us: the good that could be done but isn't and the bad that is done in our name, and to a government which is maximally accountable to us within reasonable and minimal constraints which are never perpetual or absolute.
Whether or not realizing these rights leaves open the door to terrorism, these rights should not be negotiable. A solution which recognizes these rights must be found, or if none can be found, then we must live with these consequences of our freedoms.
You're right, I'm not worth tracking. No government or corporation is going to waste its time tracking me. However, there are individuals who a corporation or a law enforcement agency (or individuals within it) abusing its power may wish to track, and I believe we have an obligation to defend the privacy of these individuals, an obligation which will in some cases compete with our obligations to bring criminals to justice.
Law enforcement agencies (or individuals within) will abuse the power we give them, whether because they have rationalized that doing so as necessary to perform their duties, or for their own private purposes. It is not often, thankfully, that this happens, but it does happen.
Realizing this, I believe that the best solution is to limit their powers such that when abuses occur, the abuses will be difficult to hide and the damage to the rights of citizens will be minimal.
The point is not that we should not trust law enforcement agencies, the point is that as little as possible, we should not have to, because a system of checks and balances and distribution of information will be in place which maximizes our ability to prevent abuse and identify it when it occurs.
In the example you cite, we must be careful to identify what the choice is between. If it is a choice between saving a little girl who has been abducted and limiting the likelihood of increasingly unchecked abuse of more expansive power by law enforcement agencies and individuals within them, then the choice may not be so clear.
Perhaps the correct approach is to identify the number of abduction cases that would probably be quickly brought to an end and the severity of increase in abuse of power by law enforcement agencies and individuals within them.
However, I suspect that many believe, and perhaps rightfully so, that we have a absolute right to a certain degree of privacy; they believe that no matter the consequences, this amount of privacy is essential to the freedom to which we as human beings have a right. Perhaps these new technologies would erode privacy beyond this essential point.
"Now, I don't live anywhere near Seattle but every day the traffic looks the same to me. A bunch of heavy traffic in the same places every day."
I suspect, however, that accidents will not be so predictable. Accidents can cause major delays, even when the vehicles involved end up in the median and legitimately should not be slowing traffic down; too many people seem to slow down to have a look.
Sure, major accidents might not happen every day, but it only takes being late to a meeting or appointment once to cause you major headaches.
You might not otherwise know if you don't listen to the radio while you drive, or would prefer not to have to listen to the radio while you drive, but instead play a CD.
I didn't realize the intention was to use a unique id across all instances of a product.
My -- perhaps somewhat dated -- understanding is that the primary use in consumer goods would be in identifying brand, 'model', and size for at least the stated purpose of making manufacturing logistics, packing, shipping, and sorting more effective.
A unique id across all instances of a product is much more interesting. I will have to investigate further I suppose.
Obviously these technologies have the potential to be an amazing boon to law enforcement in tracking fugitives and fleeing suspects, but from what I understand presently, the cost to privacy is simply too great.
Personally, I just am not worth tracking by any government or corporation, but the potential is there to infringe upon the rights of others, others who may not even realize their rights are or may someday potentially be violated, and we should watch out for them.
"What you are in effect saying is that anyone who is on trial for a serious crime should have the right to choose exile instead."
No, I am not at all suggesting that there should be an official policy or protocol permitting exile or escape or the choice of exile or escape.
I am suggesting that it should be an unwritten, unspoken concern that there should be the possibility, however remote, of disappearing, for those cases in which justice will not be done.
We should be diligent in enforcing our laws, and in seeking out those who commit crimes against others and against the State.
I believe, generally, so long as we have the right to a certain amount of privacy, with this will come the possibility, however remote, to disappear. Generally then (and perhaps always), we do not need to concern ourselves in legislation with considerations of a right to disappear, because this right will be sufficiently realized by retaining certain levels of privacy.
I do not claim that we have an absolute right to disappear when we know justice will not be done. For clearly the right to disappear will conflict with the rights of others and of society from which our obligation to prosecute criminals arises.
I believe the balance will be overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution of apparent criminals, but that so long as there is a certian amount of privacy, there will be this balance.
While I am not suggesting that presently we should be concerned with RFIDs and similar technology eliminating this balance, I believe that in the possibly not so distant future they have the potential to erode to this balance, by eroding this certain amount of privacy.
What certain amount this is, I believe is a difficult question.
Yes, there will be some people who object to it for the same reason that some people object to using mobile phones: the claim that the radio emissions are dangerous.
I think that these people are the minority. Other than on the internet I have never hear about someone who refused to use a mobile phone because of a fear that the radio emissions are dangerous.
However, you make light of more legitimate concerns.
What part of "pacify" don't you understand? When an organization or corporation states in an internal memo that it needs to "pacify" citizens who have what very much seem to be legitimate privacy concerns, this should cause you concern.
No, there is no reason to believe there is a 'conspiracy' in the sense of aliens, mind control, time travel, and shadow governments. Those things are nonsense, and if this is what you are attempting to associate our concerns with, then you have no warrant to do so.
A stated intention behind closed doors carrying out measures which seek to"pacify" what very much seem to be legitimate privacy concerns is a conspiracy.
It isn't a grand conspiracy, or one that would make a good fiction novel, but it is a conspiracy. It isn't an overwhelmingly evil-intentioned conspiracy, but it is a conspiracy. It doesn't involve the Illuminati and wouldn't make a good X-Files episode, but it is a conspiracy.
It isn't a silly wory. It isn't a bad or taboo word..
It is a group of people in what were apparently to be 'secretive' or not-for-public-consumption discussions, intending to do what very much appears to be, harm to the general consuming public. Not terrible or evil and controlling harm, but harm nonetheless.
According to the definition of the word in my 3 installed dictionaries, it is a conspiracy.
From everything I have read, there are legitimate concerns.
Slashdot Mirror
"And then other times, he proves himself to be just as blind and arrogant as the people he seeks to debunk when he makes snap statements and dismisses without properly investigating first."
What in the above account provided by Randi is inaccurate? It's very possible that I have missed something.
If you are only complaining in general about Randi, can you please provide examples of him exhibiting this behavior?
It is not enough to "claim" or "say" that you can "communicate with the dead", "read peoples' minds". Anyone, all day long, can create hype and spout psuedo-science, and many, many, many people do.
Not only this, but so many of these claims have been encountered many times before and in many variations, and they have been shown again and again to be frauds, lies, nonsense and jibberish, 'cons', delusions, and ignorance.
If you are serious about your claims, and if you are serious about arranging for proper scientific testing to verify and document your claims, then stop the hype, stop the press-releases, stop the propagandizing on your website, stop whining about "bad vibes", stop ranting and raving to your followers about Randi and the "conspiracy to suppress the 'truth'", stop the bull, and stop the crap, because he has seen it all before.
Contact the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and work with them to arrange the proper scientific testing and documentation of your claims on terms that you are involved in specifying and agree to.
Unless your "psychic hotline" is already quite profitable, surely you won't pass up the opportunity to come and claim your $1million USD? Donate it to a charity if you like.
And if your abilities and claims are just the sorts of things that a proper scientific test can not be arrange for, or can not be conducted in the presence of "bad vibes", then what, precisely, do you expect us to do? If you are the one making the claim, and you are the one with the ability, then there is absolutely nothing we can do until you prove it to us.
Is Randi "Arrogant"? Maybe.
Is Randi "Blind"? If he is, then prove it to him and prove it to all of us. Contact the JREF and work with them to arrange a proper scientific test of your abilities on terms that you are involved in specifying and agree to, and claim your $1million USD.
I, for one, am waiting.
"Bill: "If you concentrate on the gallstones, they get fixed in existence, and it's harder for them to wink out. It makes them easier to operate on." Doug: "Wow!")"
Have cancer?
Just stop thinking about it!
How did it get there in the first place when you didn't know about it and were not thinking about it?
I call conspiracy!
And while you're at it, stop fixing my extra 10 pounds in existence: how insensitive!
I think you will face significant problems in the areas of heat dissipation and general cooling.
From what have seen, many retail laptops seem to use custom heat dissipation schemes. I think we can feel pretty certain that work has been put into these custom schemes by professional engineer-types.
I also wonder whether you will be able to purchase some of the components and materials used in these schemes for your own use from companies which supply them, rather than having to buy in bulk. They may simply not be interested in doing busy with you, because it would not be worth their time financially.
While I think it would be quite fun to have, for example, an aluminum or titanium (non-Apple!) laptop case, I wouldn't be willing to risk frying a any motherboards, harddrives, and CPUs while trying to engineer a sufficient heat dissipation and cooling scheme - if I even ever could do so.
If you or anyone else know of solutions to these problems, or know that they are not the problems they seem to be, I am interested.
You are suggesting that it is not illegal to possess infringing material.
...if SCO wins even their first legal battle.
Whether or not a legal authority would recall your copy of the New York Times does not answer the question of whether or not it is legal to possess an infringing copy of the New York Times.
If it is illegal to possess an infrining copy, a legal authority still might not recall the infrining copies if it is incredibly inefficient to do so, or your possessing the infrining copy does not have any potential for significant financial or other market place harm to the copyright holder.
But this is beside the point, because in the case of the Linux kernel, we are not concerned primarily with mere posession, but instead with continued use.
If you continue to use your Linux-based system for commercial purposes after it has been found to contain infringing code, then it seems much more plausible that you may be held liable for any financial or other market harm done to the copyright holder by your continued use of code which infringes upon theiir copyright.
Certainly it seems that SCO could prevent you from redistributing your copy.
It also seems possible that SCO will not permit you to resolve this continued infringing use simply by paying a licensing fee, but may instead demand that you cease using the infringing code altogether.
I am not in any sense a lawyer, but it seems to me that the issue will be much more complex than you make it out to be,
Precisely projects of that sort, yes. Good point.
Although I hadn't had those Debian projects particularly in mind when posting.
I have never used or read in depth about the modern BSDs. I don't know what nomenclature that community uses or would prefer.
My understanding is that "BSD" has historically and does presently refer specifically to an entire distribution of software. Linux, historically, appears to have referred primarily to a kernel.
"What would you call _that OS?"
Probably, I would call it "FreeBSD" if it is true that the "BSD" of "FreeBSD" has historically and does presently refer to an entire software distribution, as in this case, the great majority of software in the distribution would remain unchanged.
Similarly with Linux, I find myself more often referring to a particular distribution than to Linux-based systems generically.
And to think, people call it redundant when RMS and others point out that "Linux" refers only to the kernel.
Obviously we need to continue making clear the distinction if reviewers supposedly "in the know" don't have it straight.
If we call the OS "Linux", what are we going to call the kernel? What are we going to call the OS, if it ceases using the Linux kernel.
With some work, any of the major Linux-based distributions could probably replace the Linux kernel with the FreeBSD kernel and many end users, particularly those who do not understand the OS/kernel distinction, would be none the wiser.
In this case, it would clearly be incorrect to call the OS "Linux", but these end users would not understand why this is so.
"What the GPL of course DOES guarantee is that the software can't become proprietary at any point, whereas the BSDs can be"
Just to be cleear, modifications can become proprietary, but what is presently available under the BSD license will always be available under the BSD license.
This use makes sense. If they can make their warehouse management and shipping more efficient, then I am all for it.
Would there even be any significant non-sinister benefits of leaving the RFID tag in after the customer has purchased the item?
It has been mentioned that it might make returns easier, but that is a benefit I am willing to live without.
I hope we do not see the day when returns are allowed only for RFID tag embedded products. Certainly legislation will be passed to prevent this as the potential draws nearer.
Are there any other potential non-sinister benefits of leaving the RFID tag in after purchase?
"MozillaQuest Magazine: Does the C++ that currently is included
in most if not all Linux distributions contain SCO IP?"
What is this convulted nonsense: "the C++"?
Read the interview.
The interviewer has either intentionally or out of astounding ignorance introduced in the first question the terms, "a C++" and "the C++" to refer to C++ compilers.
If I thought this level of intentional deception possible in a publication, I would say that the interviewer is using this convulted terminology to try to make it appear as though SCO is claiming to own the C++ language.
The SCO representative did not introduce the terms, "a C++" and "the C++". The SCO representative is simply following along with the terminology introduced by the interviewer. The SCO representative is kind enough not to inform the interviewer of the mistake, as he can easily enough understand what seems to be meant: a C++ compiler.
Do you honestly think that SCO is claiming that they frequently have customers license the C++ language from them? Of course not, that's positively ludicrous.
What is being referred to is a C++ compiler.
Pedantic? I suppose I won't object to that evaluation... oh well.
I wonder though, how weighty is a minor's right to use violent video games?
Or speaking of consequences, do the negative consequences of minors not being able to use violent video games outweigh the benefits of the extent to which those certain minors' violent actions will be less harmful?
While there will obviously initially be a lot of complaining on their part if a ban is enacted, surely that will pass.
I wonder what happened when the legal drinking age in the U.S. was raised to 21 - which must have been before my time, but I recall that it happened?
This effect could be lessened by a 'grandfather' clause which allows minors currently at or above such and such an age, perhaps 14, to continue using violent video games, but any minors under this age will not be able to use violent video games until they are (in the eyes of the legal system) an adult.
If the use of violent video games by minors who will already commit acts of violence against their peers, to instead commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games, then we should ban the use of video games by these individuals.
I am not optimistic that there will be any acceptible way to ban the use of violent video games by specifically these minors without banning the use of violent video games by all minors.
Surely a minor's right to use violent video games is not sufficiently weighty that we should on account of it not ban the use of violent video games by all minors if doing so will lessen the damage caused by those minors who will commit acts of violence against their peers.
I realize that the first objection to this will be that then we need to ban any action which cases a some group of minors to be violent. This is not so.
First, a minor's right (not necessarily a legal right, of course) to expression: such as in clothing and hairstyle, and to certain forms of speech, seems to be significantly stronger than a minor's right to use violent video games.
Second, in the case of many other factors which cause or enchance violence, there are acceptable means to more specifically identify and treat individually those minors who will be so affected.
This is potentially a sufficient reason to ban the use of violent video games altogether or the use of violent video games by certain groups.
Consider the following premises and conclusion:
1) The use of violent video games by some minors who will already commit acts of violence against theirs peers causes these minors to commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit.
2) We can not effectively enforce a ban of the use of violent video games by only those minors who will commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games.
.: 3) We should ban the use of violent video games by as extensive a group of minors as is minimally sufficient to encompass banning the use of violent video games by those minors who will commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games.
It is very unlikely it will be acceptable to satisfy (3) by banning any subset of all minors identified through some profiling process, such as: "has parents who own firearms", "are socially maladjusted", "exhibit anti-social behavior", "wear dark colors", "listen to Marilyn Manson".
Therefore I conclude, it is very likely that the only acceptable means of satisfying (3) will be to ban the use of violent video games by all minors.
The only potential objection I forsee is the claim that minors have a right to use violent video games. This is a higly dubious claim. It is quite implausible that minors have a right to the use of violent video games which is sufficiently weighty that it is not overridden by our obligations to lessen the effects of those minors which the use of violent video games will cause to commit acts of violence which are significantly more brutal, harmful, and deadly than the acts they would otherwise commit did they not use violent video games.
I am inclined to agree that the point you concede is true. However, I would feel more comfortable were more compelling evidence presented to me.
"In doing that, you'd have to ban anything that could be construed as an influence on people who react violently to their environment."
No, this is false. We do not 'have' to do anything of the sort, and neither does the force of reason at least clearly compell us to do anything of the sort.
If your right to take some action, x, is not overriden by some right possessed by another individual or group of individuals, generally, it seems, it will not be acceptable to deny you the right to take action x.
Further, in perhaps a majority of the sorts of cases you introduce, we can identify specifically and treat those individuals who are so affected by their environment. In these cases, there is generally insufficient reason to enact a ban.
You are suggesting we draw a conclusion which would seem to go beyond what is warranted by the facts you have presented. I presume you would claim that the move you are suggesting is analogous to the move being suggested by those proposing regulation of violent video games.
If you are introducing this as an argument against the suggestion that we ban all violent video games for all groups of people, then yes, the gist of your point seems to have been made; although the point seems to be rather obvious.
However, I am not aware that there is presently any serious consideration in the U.S. of banning all violent video games for all groups of people.
If instead you are claiming that the move you suggest making is analogous to the move suggested by those proposing banning the sale of violent video games to minors, then either your claim is not well-supported or you are misrepresenting the position of your opponent.
If the use of violent video games causes minors who would already commit acts of violence against their peers to instead commit similar sorts of acts, but which are significantly more brutal, violent, or harmful, than the acts they otherwise would commit, and if we can not ban the use of violent video games among only these minors, then we should consider banning the use of violent video games among all minors.
It does not seem, for example, that a minor has any significantly weighty right to the use of violent video games in the first place, and so it is likely that if such considerations as the above prove to be true or probable, then probably we will be justified in banning the use of violent video games among all minors.
While I don't like to reply to my own posts, an additional point of discussion came to mind:
Certain government agencies have rigorous requirements for verification of system security, why not also for ensuring and maintaining the integrity of data stored about human beings?
"Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials deny that, saying any glitches in the system are to be expected from a project of its scale."
Software faults will be present when the contractor involved is unwilling to or incapable of applying a rigorous formal verification processes. Individuals without formal training and without thorough comprehension of university level theorem proving practices may be unqualified to or incapable of applying these rigorous formal verification processes.
In the case of critical government systems such as SEVIS which can have profound negative effect upon the lives and futures of human beings, it should be both the expectation and requirement that the contractor involved apply rigorous formal verification processes either to the entire software system or to some sufficient subset thereof to ensure at least that data integrity is not violated.
This may involve at least formally proving correct, all operations which may potentially violate data integrity.
Of course a correctness proof will be of value only so far as the formal specifications correctly and fully describe the intended operation of the system. However, carrying out this process will itself assist in identifying errors and shortcomings present in the formal specifications.
The article also seems to suggest that this particular contractor does not have adequate knowledge of the problem domain to provide useful and timely support. Not only is this itself unaccepable, it very likely has contributed to the presence of inadequate and invalid formal specifications. Surely the federal government has had previous relationships with contractors which are more generally knowledgable of immigration policies and practices.
While I disagree with the policy which has given rise to the need for this system, attempting to satisfy this need has given further evidence of shortcomings in the development and deployment of critical software systems.
When the lives and futures of human beings are at stake, especially when this is so through not fault or knowledge of their own, we have an obligation to do better.
...a dopey 6th grader for a science fair project.
Yes!
It was as if the article was written as part of a 6th grade science project.
It had less depth than even a newspaper article on the subject might.
Was this anything more than a marketing article intended to suggest (in market-speak) that the technologies behind the quality consumer-level products of IBM and associates will be an integral part of existing new robotics technologies? Oh, and wireless(tm)! Wireless!
Wireless!
Do you want to hear me say "wireless" again? Because "robot" and "wireless" are really cool words!
Did you notice that specific products of IBM and associates were mentioned several times as potential solutions? I hardly think that we need an article to realize that wireless transfer of data may have a role in future autonomous robotics developments. We certainly do not need an article to suggest specific IBM and associates products which might be used.
That wireless transfer of data will be used is not where the technology is most or even significantly lacking; much less do the particular IBM and associates products mentioned contribute in any meaningful way to solving existing robotics technology limitations and problems.
Perhaps there is more worthwhile content in the linked resources.
The article stated that the government officials to whom the student presented his research suggested immediately that his work be taken from him and classified, and that he not be allowed to leave the building with his laptop.
If this reaction does not cause you as an average citizen, concern, it should.
The attitude displayed by these government officials is one of, "We do not control it, therefore we must suppress it".
How dare an elected official behave in this way. But you know what, it probably wasn't an elected official at all. It was an appointed official or it was an official hired by an appointed official.
How disgusting it is that we have individuals in positions of power with the potential for abuse, conducting themselves with this attitude, individuals which we as private citizens have no direct or immediate means of knowing, preventing, or limiting certain abusive behaviors, actions, and practices of.
The solution to terrorism is not to treat everyone as a potential terrorist.
The solution must involve the recognition that we as persons in this modern society are due certain rights to privacy, to the potential to know the world around us: the good that could be done but isn't and the bad that is done in our name, and to a government which is maximally accountable to us within reasonable and minimal constraints which are never perpetual or absolute.
Whether or not realizing these rights leaves open the door to terrorism, these rights should not be negotiable. A solution which recognizes these rights must be found, or if none can be found, then we must live with these consequences of our freedoms.
You're right, I'm not worth tracking. No government or corporation is going to waste its time tracking me. However, there are individuals who a corporation or a law enforcement agency (or individuals within it) abusing its power may wish to track, and I believe we have an obligation to defend the privacy of these individuals, an obligation which will in some cases compete with our obligations to bring criminals to justice.
Law enforcement agencies (or individuals within) will abuse the power we give them, whether because they have rationalized that doing so as necessary to perform their duties, or for their own private purposes. It is not often, thankfully, that this happens, but it does happen.
Realizing this, I believe that the best solution is to limit their powers such that when abuses occur, the abuses will be difficult to hide and the damage to the rights of citizens will be minimal.
The point is not that we should not trust law enforcement agencies, the point is that as little as possible, we should not have to, because a system of checks and balances and distribution of information will be in place which maximizes our ability to prevent abuse and identify it when it occurs.
In the example you cite, we must be careful to identify what the choice is between. If it is a choice between saving a little girl who has been abducted and limiting the likelihood of increasingly unchecked abuse of more expansive power by law enforcement agencies and individuals within them, then the choice may not be so clear.
Perhaps the correct approach is to identify the number of abduction cases that would probably be quickly brought to an end and the severity of increase in abuse of power by law enforcement agencies and individuals within them.
However, I suspect that many believe, and perhaps rightfully so, that we have a absolute right to a certain degree of privacy; they believe that no matter the consequences, this amount of privacy is essential to the freedom to which we as human beings have a right. Perhaps these new technologies would erode privacy beyond this essential point.
"Now, I don't live anywhere near Seattle but every day the traffic looks the same to me. A bunch of heavy traffic in the same places every day."
I suspect, however, that accidents will not be so predictable. Accidents can cause major delays, even when the vehicles involved end up in the median and legitimately should not be slowing traffic down; too many people seem to slow down to have a look.
Sure, major accidents might not happen every day, but it only takes being late to a meeting or appointment once to cause you major headaches.
You might not otherwise know if you don't listen to the radio while you drive, or would prefer not to have to listen to the radio while you drive, but instead play a CD.
I didn't realize the intention was to use a unique id across all instances of a product.
My -- perhaps somewhat dated -- understanding is that the primary use in consumer goods would be in identifying brand, 'model', and size for at least the stated purpose of making manufacturing logistics, packing, shipping, and sorting more effective.
A unique id across all instances of a product is much more interesting. I will have to investigate further I suppose.
Obviously these technologies have the potential to be an amazing boon to law enforcement in tracking fugitives and fleeing suspects, but from what I understand presently, the cost to privacy is simply too great.
Personally, I just am not worth tracking by any government or corporation, but the potential is there to infringe upon the rights of others, others who may not even realize their rights are or may someday potentially be violated, and we should watch out for them.
"What you are in effect saying is that anyone who is on trial for a serious crime should have the right to choose exile instead."
No, I am not at all suggesting that there should be an official policy or protocol permitting exile or escape or the choice of exile or escape.
I am suggesting that it should be an unwritten, unspoken concern that there should be the possibility, however remote, of disappearing, for those cases in which justice will not be done.
We should be diligent in enforcing our laws, and in seeking out those who commit crimes against others and against the State.
I believe, generally, so long as we have the right to a certain amount of privacy, with this will come the possibility, however remote, to disappear. Generally then (and perhaps always), we do not need to concern ourselves in legislation with considerations of a right to disappear, because this right will be sufficiently realized by retaining certain levels of privacy.
I do not claim that we have an absolute right to disappear when we know justice will not be done. For clearly the right to disappear will conflict with the rights of others and of society from which our obligation to prosecute criminals arises.
I believe the balance will be overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution of apparent criminals, but that so long as there is a certian amount of privacy, there will be this balance.
While I am not suggesting that presently we should be concerned with RFIDs and similar technology eliminating this balance, I believe that in the possibly not so distant future they have the potential to erode to this balance, by eroding this certain amount of privacy.
What certain amount this is, I believe is a difficult question.
Yes, there will be some people who object to it for the same reason that some people object to using mobile phones: the claim that the radio emissions are dangerous.
I think that these people are the minority. Other than on the internet I have never hear about someone who refused to use a mobile phone because of a fear that the radio emissions are dangerous.
However, you make light of more legitimate concerns.
What part of "pacify" don't you understand? When an organization or corporation states in an internal memo that it needs to "pacify" citizens who have what very much seem to be legitimate privacy concerns, this should cause you concern.
No, there is no reason to believe there is a 'conspiracy' in the sense of aliens, mind control, time travel, and shadow governments. Those things are nonsense, and if this is what you are attempting to associate our concerns with, then you have no warrant to do so.
A stated intention behind closed doors carrying out measures which seek to"pacify" what very much seem to be legitimate privacy concerns is a conspiracy.
It isn't a grand conspiracy, or one that would make a good fiction novel, but it is a conspiracy. It isn't an overwhelmingly evil-intentioned conspiracy, but it is a conspiracy. It doesn't involve the Illuminati and wouldn't make a good X-Files episode, but it is a conspiracy.
It isn't a silly wory. It isn't a bad or taboo word..
It is a group of people in what were apparently to be 'secretive' or not-for-public-consumption discussions, intending to do what very much appears to be, harm to the general consuming public. Not terrible or evil and controlling harm, but harm nonetheless.
According to the definition of the word in my 3 installed dictionaries, it is a conspiracy.
From everything I have read, there are legitimate concerns.